Bold and unapologetic commentary on race, religion, politics, and everything in between. Viewer discretion is advised.

Trump Card for 2012?

If you would’ve asked me back in January who would be the most viable GOP candidate to defeat Obama in 2012 (not necessarily based on qualifications, mind you), I would’ve probably said somebody like Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin. Never in my life would I have chosen a person like “The Hairman of the Boardroom” himself, Donald Trump. But the results of a recent Public Policy Polling survey now beg the question: Can Donald Trump really win this thing?

I suspect that a large part of Trump’s recent successful in the polls has to do with his status as a devout “birther” (despite the birther claim being debunked on numerous occasions, Obama not providing a birth certificate still arouses many people). As of late, Trump has been on a sort of media siege challenging the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate and consequently his presidency. And though his efforts have been scrutinized and ridiculed by those on the left (and some on the right), there is no denying the impact his birther philosophy has on his popularity.

Will that be enough to win him the presidency is the question.

One thing Trump has going for him is that he knows how to ring the bell of public concern. In addition to the birther claim – that still hasn’t been resolved to the liking of many Americans – he has also made certain aspects of the economy a focal point in his pre-campaign rhetoric. To wit, he has built platform based on attacking outside nations who benefit more from trade agreements with the United States than we benefit. With the job market hurting as much as it is from job outsourcing, the overwhelming amount of U.S. debt owned by the Chinese government, our nation’s growing dependance on foreign oil, and the amount of money offered to nations subjected to hardship (often at the expense of supporting people inland), Trump may have enough leverage to make some noise. Since the start of the 24-hour cable news cycle, the person with the most profound gift for tapping into the public’s concerns without necessarily putting the spotlight on America has been the most successful presidential candidate.

If there is one obvious place where Trump is exposed, it’s in his lack of refinement and media discipline. Though he exudes a certain confidence that people expect from their leaders (borderlining arrogance), he has rough edges to account for. He strongly lacks optimism, which is a near necessity for American voters. We like to “feel good” when we cast our votes; to be inspired and motivated (which is why people like Jimmy Carter tend to have very short political careers). But he is a far cry from that. Dude has never been one to hold his tongue. For example, he recently pointed out his relationship with “the blacks”, a statement that has been met with chagrin by many African-Americas. He has also gone on the record as calling America a “laughing stock” around the world. Even if his comments were made in a certain context, statements like these make some campaign managers cringe and others salivate.

In truth, Trump’s status as the GOP frontrunner means nothing at this point. Just ask would-be Presidents Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Guiliani. If electoral politics in the past thirty years or so have proven one thing, it’s that voters have a tendency to think along numerous slanted lines. People once considered “frontrunners” can quickly turn into candidates soundly rejected by voters, in favor of candidates more aligned with the people.

What are you thoughts? Do you think “The Donald” has a chance of turning the White House into the White Hotel?

Trump is too much of a cartoon character. The Dems would love for him to run. He would lose badly to President Obama-who depending on the economy, etc. is probably vulnerable–but the right Presidential and VP candidates have to be on the ticket. We know the media will marginalize any GOP candidate in favor of their favorite son–so the GOP choice must be a strong one.

I know you tend to roll conservative on most things. So I have question for you. Not trying to be snide or anything…I seriously wonder this:

Conservatives complain about how the media has a decidedly liberal bias. But given how Fox News and Talk Radio (both decidely conservative) are dominating the ratings war day in and day out, how can you say there is a liberal bias in the media?

Like I said, I’m not trying to sound like an ass here. I’m being serious.

Hey Andre,
I know I’m not Josh, but I couldn’t resist taking a stab at this. Fox news and Talk radio dominate the ratings because they don’t share the numbers with forty other organizations. The left has CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, GOOGLE, BING, Youtube, Hollywood, most all printed press, etc. AM radio is the baskin of the right and even then they have to compete on it with government susidized NPR, all other FM stations (rap, hip-hop, rock, pop) are decidedly liberal bias. If the left ONLY had MSNBC, like the right only has FOX, things would be far different in the ratings. Even if you discard all those points, talk radio is seen by most people, along with FOX as being “conservative” whereas the remaining media is just seen as media except by those of us that call them out.

In regard to Mr. Trump’s candidacy, I think this would not be adviseable. Mr. Trump, like Lee Iacocca, and Jack Welch, are used to heading successful companies in which they dictate how a business is to be run. They were/are very good in this type of management. Unfortunately, Congress and the Judicial system would take a dim view on being told how to run their business….Mr. Trump would be a lame duck 10 minutes into his presidency. His political acumen would have to take front seat to his dictatorial style. Could he do that? Not likely.

When will this country get real ? First we have the egotistical and totally unqualified Palin thinking about a run for the presidency and now we have the even more egotistical Trump thinking he is presidential material………?????? If he were elected president the first thing he would do is paint the white house pink, add a hundred and fifty floors and then turn it into a casino.This man doesn’t give a hoot about anything but himself and making a fast buck.Please let’s stop joking around here and treat the presidency with the respect that it deserves.

Any party that gives credence to people like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin could certainly nominate the Donald. So, yes, it’s possible he could win the nomination and ultimately the presidency.

Reason and intelligence have given sway to popularity and practically anyone who can mobilize the zany base. Without that base, the repubs couldn’t win mayorial elections, much less national elections. Oh, don’t forget the religilous, since trump now is pro-choice.

Hey Dre,
You thought about”the most viable GOP candidate” and you came up with Sarah and Newt? Mike I’ll agree with, but Newt is just a Stalking Horse with ZERO chance and Sarah is his victim.
Trump on the other hand, is doing a great job of pointing something out that you seem to want to ignore. That President Obama has been far from transparent about his birth certificate. Why? Why not release everything that Hawaii has? The name of the attending physician? The long form if it still exists. I’m not buying into the whole “birther” idea, simply because no one has PROVEN to me yet that Obama wasn’t born here. When you accuse someone, the onus is on YOU to prove your accusations. This is the problem I had, and still have, with the “9/11 Truthers”. At least now the Liberals can see what it’s like to have someone throw out outrageous accusations with no real proof of a crime, just a lot of questions. All these people are playing a role. Right now, Trump is doing his Michael Moore impersonation. The goal is not to win yourself, it’s to get attention and diminish the opponent. If he happens to make some money in the process (like MM did), all the better.

Who are these mythical creatures called “liberals” and “conservatives”? When I look at America, I see a kaleidoscope of intertwining beliefs and ideas that you would be hard pressed to categorize with a whole book’s worth of description, let alone two words.

Good point Malik. I think it just plays into the idea that you can pigeon-hole people into easy-to-understand catagories. People are far more complex than that. However, I do think you can accurately classify about 25% of people at the far ends of the spectrum into Liberal and Conservative as long as you use a loose definition. Perhaps the easiest way to see if someone fits into the Lib or Con label is by a simple test; will they back those people right or wrong.